Verify a project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the outcome model: ok=true means green, stages enumerates per-stage status, and error.fix gives the first failure at file:line. That is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it omits side effects (does the pipeline write anything to disk?), expected runtime, and whether it is safe to run repeatedly — important for a tool whose name suggests a full pipeline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the outcome semantics front-loaded and no filler. It could be split for readability, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, the description only needs to frame intent and outcome, which it does. Minor gaps remain around side effects and interaction between the description and the optional stages (inspector/conformance), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (dir, inspector, timeoutSec, conformance) and their defaults are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the prose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run the mcpgen verification pipeline") and ties it to the CLI command it wraps (`mcpgen check`), which makes the tool's job immediately identifiable. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like `mcpgen_add` or `mcpgen_schema`, but the verify-vs-scaffold distinction is clear from the wording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to check a project's health, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to the sibling tools. No prerequisites (e.g. project must already be generated) are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.